Disposed

C.N.Shanmugasamy v. the Commissioner

Madras HC8 Dec 2015WP/24425/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Court held that despite petitioner's claim for compensation for illegal land acquisition, the respondent's newly raised facts regarding claim cancellation require notice to petitioner for proper adjudication, hence no final decision on merits was made.

What did the court decide?

Respondent directed to state grounds for non-entitlement and submit records within two weeks; no costs awarded.

C.N.Shanmugasamy Vs the Commissioner — Land Acquisition | Madras HC (2015)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 08.12.2015

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE T.S.SIVAGNANAM

¶5

W.P.No.24425 of 2012

¶6

1.C.N.SHANMUGASAMY [ PETITIONER ]

¶7

2.K.JAYANTHI POWER AGENT OF the 1st petitioner

¶8

(2nd petitioner impleaded as per order dated

¶9

01/02/2013 made in MP1/13 IN WP 24425/2012)

¶10

¶11

THE COMMISSIONER VILLUPURAM MUNICIPALITY VILLUPURAM. [ RESPONDENT ]

¶12

Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of mandamus to direct the respondent to pay compensation of Rs.20,80,000/- for the illegal acquisition of land of the petitioner to the extent of 1300 sq.ft. in Dry S. No.62/3 Plot No.8 Poonthottam, Villupuram, within the period specified by this Court.

¶13

For Petitioners .. Mr.N.Suresh For Respondent .. Mr.P.Srinivas

¶14

O R D E R

¶15

With the consent of the learned counsel appearing on either side, the writ petition is taken up for final disposal.

¶16

2. Heard Mr.N.Suresh, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners and Mr.P.Srinivas, learned counsel appearing for respondent.

¶17

3.The first petitioner has filed this Writ Petition claiming compensation from the respondent Municipality on the ground his lands were illegally taken over and without resorting to any acquisition proceedings.

¶18

4.The respondent in their counter affidavit submitted that the land has been acquired for laying 'Thar Road' as early as

¶19

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶20

in 1997 and at that time, the first petitioner did not raise any objection and after several decades, now the first petitioner has come forward with this plea.

¶21

5.The learned counsel for the petitioners has drawn the attention of this Court to the resolution passed by the respondent on 31.08.2008, wherein it was resolved to grant compensation to the petitioner.

¶22

6.On instructions, the learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the said resolution has been cancelled by a further resolution in Resolution No.1804 dated 30.10.2015.

¶23

7.However, all these facts have not been brought to the knowledge of the petitioners and stated before this Court for the first time. It is rather unfortunate that the respondent has not even sent reply to any of the petitioners representations. Unless and until the petitioners are put on notice of all the above facts as pleaded in the counter affidavit, they would not be in a position to agitate their claims.

¶24

8.Accordingly, the respondent is directed to clearly state as to under what ground the petitioners are not entitled for the claim made by them, along with supportive documents including the records relating to Tamil Nadu Survey and Boundaries Act, 1923, and copy of the resolution dated 30.10.2015, shall be forwarded to the petitioners within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Thereafter, the petitioners are at liberty to work out their remedy in the manner known to law, if they are so advised.

¶25

The Writ Petition is disposed of accordingly. No costs. rpa -s/d- Assistant Registrar(CS-II) True Copy

¶26

Sub-Assistant Registrar To THE COMMISSIONER VILLUPURAM MUNICIPALITY VILLUPURAM.

¶27

1 cc to Mr.N.Suresh, Advocate SR 65923 + 1 cc to Mr.P.Srinivas, Advocate SR 65748 kji(co) prk17/12 W.P.No.24425 of 2012

¶28

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

C.N.Shanmugasamy v. the Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

C.N.Shanmugasamy v. the Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Arulmigu Kapaleeswarar Temple Vs the State of Tamilnadu

C.Rosaiah, Vs The District Collector

D.Jayakumar, S/o.K.Thangaraj, Vs The Inspector of Panchayats

A.Chandarasekar Vs the Management of the Garrisan

D.Rajasekaran Vs the Management of the Garrison

Tamilnadu State Transport Vs The Government of Tamilnadu